These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Exploring The Character Bazaar & Skill Trading

First post First post First post
Author
Dave Stark
#4921 - 2015-10-25 17:24:55 UTC
Don ZOLA wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Don ZOLA wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Don ZOLA wrote:
You continuously spam and make noise. I can agree with that. Yet you did not manage to provide counter arguments for all those "weak arguments" people provided. If you are trying to "win" discussion by simply spamming and repeating bs, stating lies as a fact. Anyone who read the whole thread or asked you any question is aware of it. And no matter how many tries you lie and say you did provided counter arguments I will be here to challenge that bs again ^^.


which of my posts were lies. feel free to link one, i mean you seem to have no shortage of them apparently.

i mean, i don't mind you disagreeing with me - that's fine. however to call me a liar, that's just rude.


Here are just some from the first 100 pages.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103003#post6103003

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103187#post6103187

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103207#post6103207

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103367#post6103367

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103389#post6103389

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103449#post6103449

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103467#post6103467

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103502#post6103502

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103536#post6103536

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103624#post6103624

Cba to go further atm. There are plenty of other posts you had where you have taken things out of context, twisted out words, avoided answering questions etc etc.

And btw there are even posts where you agree with some arguments, yet you keep repeating there are no arguments made.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103617#post6103617


So yes, please continue with your noise, hope you will not be bothered by me challenging anything you say, until you provide some real counter arguments.

And calling you a liar is not as rude as you saying no one provided arguments, yet failing to counter them. As I have obvious proofs you are a lier, this topic is full of them. If someone reads it objectively, without taking sides of the topic, he can find them easily. Same for your manipulative posting, twisting things out, taking things out of context, digressing from the quoted subjects etc.. So yes, you sir are a liar, sorry if you cannot handle the truth.


none of those are lies, you've literally just pasted a bunch of links to me stating facts, and one question (which by definition can't be a lie, since it's not a statement).


Please go ahead and prove them not being lies. Just stating so is not good enough ^^

Also I have provided a link where you agree with my argument, ie proving your statement that there was no real argument lie again.


what do you mean prove them not being lies... that's pretty evident in the fact that they aren't.

no, i agreed that business models are shifting - which has absolutely nothing to do with this topic or any of your arguments.
Don ZOLA
Omniscient Order
#4922 - 2015-10-25 17:33:03 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Don ZOLA wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Don ZOLA wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


i mean, i don't mind you disagreeing with me - that's fine. however to call me a liar, that's just rude.


Here are just some from the first 100 pages.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103003#post6103003

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103187#post6103187

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103207#post6103207

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103367#post6103367

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103389#post6103389

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103449#post6103449

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103467#post6103467

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103502#post6103502

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103536#post6103536

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103624#post6103624

Cba to go further atm. There are plenty of other posts you had where you have taken things out of context, twisted out words, avoided answering questions etc etc.

And btw there are even posts where you agree with some arguments, yet you keep repeating there are no arguments made.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103617#post6103617


So yes, please continue with your noise, hope you will not be bothered by me challenging anything you say, until you provide some real counter arguments.

And calling you a liar is not as rude as you saying no one provided arguments, yet failing to counter them. As I have obvious proofs you are a lier, this topic is full of them. If someone reads it objectively, without taking sides of the topic, he can find them easily. Same for your manipulative posting, twisting things out, taking things out of context, digressing from the quoted subjects etc.. So yes, you sir are a liar, sorry if you cannot handle the truth.


none of those are lies, you've literally just pasted a bunch of links to me stating facts, and one question (which by definition can't be a lie, since it's not a statement).


Please go ahead and prove them not being lies. Just stating so is not good enough ^^

Also I have provided a link where you agree with my argument, ie proving your statement that there was no real argument lie again.


what do you mean prove them not being lies... that's pretty evident in the fact that they aren't.

no, i agreed that business models are shifting - which has absolutely nothing to do with this topic or any of your arguments.


They are blatant lies. If you fail to prove they are not you are a liar. Simple as that. Your "credibility" is at stake here sir (like you had any :D).

"Because the game seemed to be consistent. So it looked like it was worth putting in effort. By changing that, CCP sends a message to the player base that when it comes to money there is no consistency. It`s all about the benjamins babe. Problem is that they can only see short term yield of money and fail to foresee what will happen in the long run.

Not everyone will quit because of it, it is not going to break a game imediatelly but it will surely make some people quit immediately and others to drop long term plans for the game as they cannot lean on it. So, yes more and more people will quit, causing less and less money for ccp and in the end the servers are going to die..."

This is the post you have agreed with and it is pointing out consequences of this change. So it is quite on topic.

Your business model comment comes later, where you assume that CCP will switch from subscription to microtransactions. Which will probably not happen.

There are 2 rules in a successful life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#4923 - 2015-10-25 17:34:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Dror wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
I really can't accept 173 players as a representative group of even a small game group.

Then find an alternative study?

Out of all of that, how is it not obvious that SP limits effectiveness, which is the very definition of control in the study? What counter do you have that an inherent drive is to win, which relies on fair opportunity?


I don't have to find an alternative study, the one you have chosen refutes itself for theuse you are putting it to. The number of case studies in itself is way too small to produce anything more than interesting avenues for research and that would need consideration to to the self reported nature of the feedback. That and the fact that EvE is a very different beats to other MMO's makes this study next to useless as a reason to remove SP.

The control you refer to is also the control a player has over their character progression, not the control a game places over a character. The control of a player over their character is highlighted as an intrinsic part of player investment in their character and therefore the game. EvE gives you this control on an even basis no matter how much time you can invest into the game. A player who plays 40 hours a week will have exactly the same investment in the progression of their character as one who only has 4 hours spare. This is one of the absolute best things about the game.

This is another reason why I'm against the SP buying idea that will be implemented as well, it's messing with this at a level where a player with low game time will be made to feel disenfranchised as they can't afford to pay for the increased SP in RL cash or in game ISK. New players will also feel pressured to pay extra cash just to speed up training. I'm extremely uncomfortable with that whole idea.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#4924 - 2015-10-25 17:35:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
During the Vegas keynote Seagull mentioned that this is an idea in which she feels will benefit the game, but also understood that this is a fundamental change to the game and so asked the playerbase for feedback / suggestions on how to go forward. With this in mind after some time to fully reflect on the consequences of the change, I offer the following constructive suggestions and criticisms of the proposal below.

CRITICISMS

A lot of the problems with the proposed system have been listed in detail already, but in summary the most game breaking issues are the three below:


1. There is massive room for exploitation with this proposal, big alliances with lots of disposable ISK will be able to instantly train up an alt (and do this very effectively up to 50million SP). On reflection the main issue I have with this is that it is INSTANT, that will make it completely overpowered and exploitable for many of the reasons already detailed.

2. The proposal creates the concept of SP farms, and allows veteran players with lots of spare SP or ISK to setup these farms to milk as much ISK as they can out of it. Also this is PASSIVE income which is something that CCP has been trying to remove from the game, and worst off it is passive income with absolutely no effort required to set it up or defend.

3. The proposal will introduce a grind for SP. I have nothing against a small amount of grinding, but the problem with this is that it introduces the prospect of completely UNLIMITED grinding, you can just continually buy more skill packets. This will not be fun in terms of gameplay as you will miss out on a lot of the more niche aspects of eve, things which you pull off with the tools you have available. So instead of being creative and exploring the possibilities in eve and overcoming odds with knowledge and skill, the main option will be to grind more SP to keep up. There will be no excuse now for not being able to fly the doctrine or perfectly fit ships, if you can't then you will be told to go and grind SP and come back later. This in turn makes the game less fun.


So hopefully that answers a lot of the people who cannot understand why people are against this idea. That is three very clear and objective points.


SOLUTION

I do think we have to accept that there are certain aspects of the game which CCP wants to change, after all the game needs to progress. I can understand that CCP wants the skill system to be less unforgiving, and more easy for new players to get into and advance along. These are reasonable goals, although they do not require the currently proposed method with all of its drawbacks. So instead I propose the two approaches below:
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#4925 - 2015-10-25 17:35:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
Skill Remapping

I have always been against this, but if this will help newer players by making the skill system less unforgiving, then upon reflection if it is implemented in a moderate way then it shouldn't be too bad. So here is my suggestion.

You buy a Neural Modifier from the market (or Aurum store) which comes in the types below:

Basic Neural Modifier - allows character to reallocate up to 3m SP - cost 1 PLEX - cool-down 1 year.
Enhanced Neural Modifier - allows character to reallocate up to 5m SP - costs 2 PLEX - cool-down 1 year.

To stop the kind of exploitation which you would get with the instant reallocation of unallocated SP in the skill trading proposal, the skill remapping would have a cool-down period of one year. You could reallocate during the cool-down period although you will get diminishing returns. So in practice the reallocation would only confers the full benefit if you wait for one year after the previous reallocation. If you reallocate for instance 6 months after the last reallocation (50% of the cool-down period) then you would get 50% of the benefit (1.5m or 2.5m SP).

These prices are still high for a newer player (who will be the one who needs them the most), and so to make the skill system is even less unforgiving for newer players (and due to the malleability of a new player's brain) they would have the opportunity to reallocate their SP more freely during their initial stages. As a result all new characters would come with 2 free Neural Modifications which would allow them to reallocate 2m SP each time for no cost and with no cool-down (this would be fixed to the character and could not be traded).

I believe skill remapping would make the skill system less unforgiving as choices could be undone to a limited degree and at a cost (again would be much more favourable to a newer player). This would achieve some of CCP's goals without introducing the type of grind you would get with trying to buy skill packets, and all and possibilities of exploitation that come with that.


Cerebral Enhancers

Another of the issues that CCP mentioned was that newer players were quitting because they didn't feel as though they could speed up their progress. I think this is also a fair point and newer players should be able to speed things up to some degree, although very importantly they should not be able to just completely skip straight to 50m SP if they have the out of game money.

The exception to this is obviously the character bazaar, although with another method in place to speed up skill training though I believe newer players would not feel so inclined to take the jump and buy a character from the bazaar. I don't believe that using the CB is a good gameplay experience for a new player (and usually doesn't end well) so offering them a valid alternative should give more choices to a new player and hopefully increase retention. The CB should be more of a tool for advanced players wanting to trade highly specialised character, and genuine new players will be catered for by the proposal below.

Cerebral enhancers would come in the 2 variations below:

Standard Enhancer
increases SP gain by 100% for 7 days.
Estimated market price - 1/8 Plex (150m)

Advanced Enhancer
increases SP gain by 150% for 7 days.
Estimated market price - 1/4 Plex (300m)

The effect of the enhancer is modified based upon the SP total of the character it is used upon.

0 – 10 million skillpoints = 100% effect (150% increased training speed - 6750 SP hour max)
10 - 25 million skillpoints = 75% effect (112.5% increased training speed - 5737.5 SP hour max)
25 - 50 million skillpoints = 50% effect (75% increased training speed - 4725 SP hour max)
50 – 80 million skillpoints = 25% effect (37.5% increased training speed - 3712.5 SP hour max)
80 + million skillpoints = 20% effect (30% increased training speed - 3510 SP hour max)

Using cerebral enhancers which heavily benefit newer players over older players would mean that if newer players chooses to do so then they could speed up their skill training for a reasonable cost . As this proposal is not as exploitable as the instant unallocated SP you would get with skill trading, I don't see this being quite as desirable to veteren players (particularly considering they benefit they would get is only 1/5 of that which a new player would get). As a result the market would reflect a price that is attainable to a new character.
Dave Stark
#4926 - 2015-10-25 17:40:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Don ZOLA wrote:
They are blatant lies. If you fail to prove they are not you are a liar. Simple as that. Your "credibility" is at stake here sir (like you had any :D).

"Because the game seemed to be consistent. So it looked like it was worth putting in effort. By changing that, CCP sends a message to the player base that when it comes to money there is no consistency. It`s all about the benjamins babe. Problem is that they can only see short term yield of money and fail to foresee what will happen in the long run.

Not everyone will quit because of it, it is not going to break a game imediatelly but it will surely make some people quit immediately and others to drop long term plans for the game as they cannot lean on it. So, yes more and more people will quit, causing less and less money for ccp and in the end the servers are going to die..."

This is the post you have agreed with and it is pointing out consequences of this change. So it is quite on topic.

Your business model comment comes later, where you assume that CCP will switch from subscription to microtransactions. Which will probably not happen.


no, as you're the one calling me a liar the burden of truth is on you. not me. as for my proof, it's in those links. anyone can read the truth there - the facts i presented.

i said there would be a reduced need for alts and this would lead to a decline in subscribed accounts - that statement ignores the fact that people will simply have SP farming accounts instead. however i didn't comment on that as there's no way to quantify whether or not it'll be a net loss or gain.

my business model comment was in the same post. where i merely pointed out the whole industry has shifted to microtransactions. i didn't make any assumptions about what ccp would do. i asked a question, that question being is it time we accepted that CCP moved from subscriptions to micro transactions. if either of us are liars, it would appear to be you.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#4927 - 2015-10-25 17:41:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Moac Tor wrote:
Skill Remapping

I have always been against this, but if this will help newer players by making the skill system less unforgiving, then upon reflection if it is implemented in a moderate way then it shouldn't be too bad. So here is my suggestion.

You buy a Neural Modifier from the market (or Aurum store) which comes in the types below;
Basic Neural Modifier - allows character to reallocate up to 3m SP - cost 1 PLEX.
Enhanced Neural Modifier - allows character to reallocate up to 5m SP - costs 2 PLEX.

To stop the kind of exploitation you get with skill trading the reallocation process would have a cool-down period of one year. You could reallocate during the cool-down period although you will get diminishing returns. So in practice the reallocation would only confers the full benefit if you wait for one year after the previous reallocation. If you reallocate for instance 6 months after the last reallocation (50% of the cool-down period) then you would get 50% of the benefit (1.5m or 2.5m SP).

And to make the skill system even less unforgiving for newer players (and due to the malleability of a new player's brain) they would have the opportunity to reallocate their SP more freely during their initial stages. As a result all new characters would come with 2 free Neural Modifications which would allow them to reallocate 2m SP each time for no cost and with no cool-down (this would be fixed to the character and could not be traded).

I believe this would make the skill system less unforgiving which would achieve some of CCPs goals without introducing the grind and possibility of exploitation that would come with skill trading.

Cerebral Enhancers
Another of the issues that CCP mentioned was that newer players were quitting because they didn't feel as though they could speed up their progress. I think this is also a fair point and newer players should be able to speed things up to some degree, although very importantly they should not be able to just completely skip straight to 50m SP if they have the cash.
The exception to this is obviously the character bazaar. With another method in place to speed up skill training though I believe newer players would not feel so inclined to take the jump and buy a character from the bazaar, this is good as I don't believe that using the CB is a good gameplay experience for a new player (and usually doesn't end well). I see the CB as more of a tool for advanced players and a lot of new players will be catered for by the proposal below.

Cerebral enhancers would come in the 2 variations below:

Standard Enhancer
increases SP gain by 100% for 7 days.
Estimated market price - 1/8 Plex (150m)

Advanced Enhancer
increases SP gain by 150% for 7 days.
Estimated market price - 1/4 Plex (300m)

The effect of the enhancer is modified based upon the SP total of the character it is used upon.

0 – 10 million skillpoints = 100% effect (150% increased training speed - 6750 SP hour max)
10 - 25 million skillpoints = 75% effect (112.5% increased training speed - 5737.5 SP hour max)
25 - 50 million skillpoints = 50% effect (75% increased training speed - 4725 SP hour max)
50 – 80 million skillpoints = 25% effect (37.5% increased training speed - 3712.5 SP hour max)
80 + million skillpoints = 20% effect (30% increased training speed - 3510 SP hour max)

Using cerebral enhancers which heavily benefit newer players over older players would mean that if newer players choose to do so then they could speed up their skill training for a reasonable cost (both in game and through plex). As this is not as exploitable as instant unallocated SP, I don't see this being quite as desirable to veteren players (particularly considering they benefit they would get is only 1/5 of that which a new player would get), and as a result the market would reflect a price that is attainable to a new character.


Not a fan of the remaps but I could live with the second idea in some form. I'd want a hard cap on enhancers use though and make them player created in game in some form that it is more useful for new players to produce them rather than vets farming them. This would give new players more investment in the game, would allow them to produce them by themselves as an introduction to manufacture and exploration. New players could then sell them for isk if they are patient to wait on the skill queue or just eat them like smarties if not.

ED: I also firmly believe that new players would find importable skill queues invaluable. CCP could create basic combat, explo, indy ones and corps could produce more tailored ones to entice new folks.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4928 - 2015-10-25 17:44:08 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Dror wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
I really can't accept 173 players as a representative group of even a small game group.

Then find an alternative study?

Out of all of that, how is it not obvious that SP limits effectiveness, which is the very definition of control in the study? What counter do you have that an inherent drive is to win, which relies on fair opportunity?


I don't have to find an alternative study, the one you have chosen refutes itself for theuse you are putting it to. The number of case studies in itself is way too small to produce anything more than interesting avenues for research and that would need consideration to to the self reported nature of the feedback. That and the fact that EvE is a very different beats to other MMO's makes this study next to useless as a reason to remove SP.

The control you refer to is also the control a player has over their character progression, not the control a game places over a character. The control of a player over their character is highlighted as an intrinsic part of player investment in their character and therefore the game. EvE gives you this control on an even basis no matter how much time you can invest into the game. A player who plays 40 hours a week will have exactly the same investment in the progression of their character as one who only has 4 hours spare. This is one of the absolute best things about the game.

This is another reason why I'm against the SP buying idea that will be implemented as well, it's messing with this at a level where a player with low game time will be made to feel disenfranchised as they can't afford to pay for the increased SP in TL cash or in game ISK. New players will also feel pressured to pay extra cash just to speed up training. I'm extremely uncomfortable with that whole idea.

It's very specifically defined as the control a character has over his environment. That includes the opportunity to win, produce, strategize, and improve.

The idea about SP providing even-field "character progression" is worthless for criticizing the game without SP.

Beyond all of that, the study is just correlating previous theories and a study sample for more evidence. You can't refute the inherence of winning and fairness and opportunity to interest and motivation. You obviously can't evidence that "pretend" character progression (SP) is more powerful than actual character progression, effectiveness, and experiences.

Posts refuted. Enjoy.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#4929 - 2015-10-25 17:52:37 UTC
Dror wrote:


Posts refuted. Enjoy.


You are refusing to accept that the study itself acknowledges that it has sever limitations and is based upon a very small set of case studies that may or may not have doubtful relevance.

You cannot use this study to argue a case for removing SP and you are blatantly ignoring the fact that CCP have stated that SP are a central core of the game. They may want to change the rate at which you gain them but they do not want to remove them. Oh and that's not an appeal to authority as you like to put it, simply a statement of the CCP position.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#4930 - 2015-10-25 18:01:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Not a fan of the remaps but I could live with the second idea in some form. I'd want a hard cap on enhancers use though and make them player created in game in some form that it is more useful for new players to produce them rather than vets farming them. This would give new players more investment in the game, would allow them to produce them by themselves as an introduction to manufacture and exploration. New players could then sell them for isk if they are patient to wait on the skill queue or just eat them like smarties if not.

ED: I also firmly believe that new players would find importable skill queues invaluable. CCP could create basic combat, explo, indy ones and corps could produce more tailored ones to entice new folks.

I've never been a fan of the idea of skill remaps myself, but if CCP are saying they have factual evidence to believe that this is hurting the long term health of the game then I am willing to reconsider. The most important part is that this should be implemented in a limited form, like you say perhaps impose hard caps. With any changes CCP makes they should be slow and gradual, and should not destroy the essence of the game.

Also ideally I'd like everything to be player made (including ship skins), although I understand that CCP needs revenue from these micro-transactions as long as it doesn't get out of control. I wouldn't like to see it go any further than what I proposed above, and ideally if they could revert ship skins to being player made as a trade then that would suit me.
Levi Belvar
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#4931 - 2015-10-25 18:02:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Levi Belvar
Moac Tor wrote:
Skill Remapping

I have always been against this, but if this will help newer players by making the skill system less unforgiving, then upon reflection if it is implemented in a moderate way then it shouldn't be too bad. So here is my suggestion.

You buy a Neural Modifier from the market (or Aurum store) which comes in the types below:

Basic Neural Modifier - allows character to reallocate up to 3m SP - cost 1 PLEX - cool-down 1 year.
Enhanced Neural Modifier - allows character to reallocate up to 5m SP - costs 2 PLEX - cool-down 1 year.

To stop the kind of exploitation which you would get with the instant reallocation of unallocated SP in the skill trading proposal, the skill remapping would have a cool-down period of one year. You could reallocate during the cool-down period although you will get diminishing returns. So in practice the reallocation would only confers the full benefit if you wait for one year after the previous reallocation. If you reallocate for instance 6 months after the last reallocation (50% of the cool-down period) then you would get 50% of the benefit (1.5m or 2.5m SP).

These prices are still high for a newer player (who will be the one who needs them the most), and so to make the skill system is even less unforgiving for newer players (and due to the malleability of a new player's brain) they would have the opportunity to reallocate their SP more freely during their initial stages. As a result all new characters would come with 2 free Neural Modifications which would allow them to reallocate 2m SP each time for no cost and with no cool-down (this would be fixed to the character and could not be traded).

I believe skill remapping would make the skill system less unforgiving as choices could be undone to a limited degree and at a cost (again would be much more favourable to a newer player). This would achieve some of CCP's goals without introducing the type of grind you would get with trying to buy skill packets, and all and possibilities of exploitation that come with that.


Cerebral Enhancers

Another of the issues that CCP mentioned was that newer players were quitting because they didn't feel as though they could speed up their progress. I think this is also a fair point and newer players should be able to speed things up to some degree, although very importantly they should not be able to just completely skip straight to 50m SP if they have the out of game money.

The exception to this is obviously the character bazaar, although with another method in place to speed up skill training though I believe newer players would not feel so inclined to take the jump and buy a character from the bazaar. I don't believe that using the CB is a good gameplay experience for a new player (and usually doesn't end well) so offering them a valid alternative should give more choices to a new player and hopefully increase retention. The CB should be more of a tool for advanced players wanting to trade highly specialised character, and genuine new players will be catered for by the proposal below.

Cerebral enhancers would come in the 2 variations below:

Standard Enhancer
increases SP gain by 100% for 7 days.
Estimated market price - 1/8 Plex (150m)

Advanced Enhancer
increases SP gain by 150% for 7 days.
Estimated market price - 1/4 Plex (300m)

The effect of the enhancer is modified based upon the SP total of the character it is used upon.

0 – 10 million skillpoints = 100% effect (150% increased training speed - 6750 SP hour max)
10 - 25 million skillpoints = 75% effect (112.5% increased training speed - 5737.5 SP hour max)
25 - 50 million skillpoints = 50% effect (75% increased training speed - 4725 SP hour max)
50 – 80 million skillpoints = 25% effect (37.5% increased training speed - 3712.5 SP hour max)
80 + million skillpoints = 20% effect (30% increased training speed - 3510 SP hour max)

Using cerebral enhancers which heavily benefit newer players over older players would mean that if newer players chooses to do so then they could speed up their skill training for a reasonable cost . As this proposal is not as exploitable as the instant unallocated SP you would get with skill trading, I don't see this being quite as desirable to veteren players (particularly considering they benefit they would get is only 1/5 of that which a new player would get). As a result the market would reflect a price that is attainable to a new character.


Both are of benefit to the game,older players can lose there unwanted skills and new players get their head start, it would seem they do listen before committing then which is a vast improvement. +10 to all involved on this idea Big smileBig smileBig smileBig smile

“Stupidity and wisdom meet in the same centre of sentiment and resolution, in the suffering of human accidents.”

Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4932 - 2015-10-25 18:06:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Dror
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Dror wrote:


Posts refuted. Enjoy.


You are refusing to accept that the study itself acknowledges that it has sever limitations and is based upon a very small set of case studies that may or may not have doubtful relevance.

You cannot use this study to argue a case for removing SP and you are blatantly ignoring the fact that CCP have stated that SP are a central core of the game. They may want to change the rate at which you gain them but they do not want to remove them. Oh and that's not an appeal to authority as you like to put it, simply a statement of the CCP position.

I wasn't. The study's very questions are based on psychological ownership theory and social identity theory. There's very little variation with the idea "I feel valuable in my guild". Like, you're not actually challenging the study's contents, just the idea that a small-scale study can be comprehensive.

Again, if you can't provide an alternative to the inherence of winning and experiencing (to enjoyment, loyalty, etc.), then you're posting nothing.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#4933 - 2015-10-25 18:22:35 UTC
Dror wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Dror wrote:


Posts refuted. Enjoy.


You are refusing to accept that the study itself acknowledges that it has sever limitations and is based upon a very small set of case studies that may or may not have doubtful relevance.

You cannot use this study to argue a case for removing SP and you are blatantly ignoring the fact that CCP have stated that SP are a central core of the game. They may want to change the rate at which you gain them but they do not want to remove them. Oh and that's not an appeal to authority as you like to put it, simply a statement of the CCP position.

I wasn't. The study's very questions are based on psychological ownership theory and social identity theory. There's very little variation with the idea "I feel valuable in my guild". Like, you're not actually challenging the study's contents, just the idea that a small-scale study can be comprehensive.

Again, if you can't provide an alternative to the inherence of winning and experiencing (to enjoyment, loyalty, etc.), then you're posting nothing.


I read the study completely, gave my view on various sections and challenged those I did not agree with. I do not have to point out the limitations of the study as they are explicitly acknowledged by the study itself. You actually pull out one of the points I agreed with to use against me! I specifically stated I agree wholeheartedly that being part of a corp is highly valuable to player retention.

A small scale study that uses a very limited case study group cannot be comprehensive by definition. The data set provided is acknowledged as potentially flawed and simply isn't big enough to extrapolate any results from in any reliable form.

Again I do not have to find a study to prov that the study you hold up as a paragon of truth actually states it has flaws. You've been banging on that people should read the study end to end. When I do and give a considered response to many points within it you seem to resort to 'lalalalala I'm not listening...'

Loyalty is implicitly tied to social interaction within EvE (whether that be as a part of a corp or alliance or simply a social chat channel). Enjoyment comes from a player participating in those areas of the game (not just capital PvP combat as you seem to think)

A player cannot control the environment in which they play, especially so in EvE where you have other unpredictable players to contend with. You can only control the direction in which your character develops. If you remove the character growth delivered by SP and skills you remove the only thing other than the avatar itself that creates player investment in their character. Hence the control the study talks about is the players control over the character growth.
ColdBeauty
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4934 - 2015-10-25 18:32:07 UTC  |  Edited by: ColdBeauty
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:

. No way SP prices will rise above 1/4 PLEX + Extractor, this is simple market logic


Fairly sure PLEX price is not static and there are daily threads created bemoaning it's continual rise. It's more than possible that rising plex price will prevent new players from buying SPs unless they use R/L cash. So back to the possibility of SPs only being available to rich in game vets and rich in R/L newbs.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4935 - 2015-10-25 18:34:51 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Loyalty is implicitly tied to social interaction within EvE (whether that be as a part of a corp or alliance or simply a social chat channel). Enjoyment comes from a player participating in those areas of the game (not just capital PvP combat as you seem to think)

A player cannot control the environment in which they play, especially so in EvE where you have other unpredictable players to contend with. You can only control the direction in which your character develops. If you remove the character growth delivered by SP and skills you remove the only thing other than the avatar itself that creates player investment in their character. Hence the control the study talks about is the players control over the character growth.

Social interaction is limited by SP, through effectiveness (status) and productivity (entertainment). That all is the same for gameplay as well, from limitations on exploration (diversity and depth) ..and mastery (fleet comps, being competitive, and practicing ships and fittings and other niches).

You're not defining ideas accurately within the scope of the discussion. A character very well can control the environment, because the definition of that is effectiveness and strategy. Nowhere does the study (nor another, deeper explanation of) control define that as "placing opponents in space". It's about making the most of the character and the full amount of options in the game. It's maximizing opportunity to avoid loss.

You're trying to define a character as this fake identity through trickle-allocated stats, and there's no reason for that. It's basically just an appeal to board-game tradition -- but even those start the character out with full stats (and abilities) from the start. If the gamer is trying to find rapport with the fantasy of playing an MMO character, he can find much less enjoyment with being gated.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.

General Lootit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4936 - 2015-10-25 18:35:53 UTC  |  Edited by: General Lootit
Moac Tor wrote:

1. There is massive room for exploitation with this proposal, big alliances with lots of disposable ISK will be able to instantly train up an alt (and do this very effectively up to 50million SP). On reflection the main issue I have with this is that it is INSTANT, that will make it completely overpowered and exploitable for many of the reasons already detailed.

2. The proposal creates the concept of SP farms, and allows veteran players with lots of spare SP or ISK to setup these farms to milk as much ISK as they can out of it. Also this is PASSIVE income which is something that CCP has been trying to remove from the game, and worst off it is passive income with absolutely no effort required to set it up or defend.

3. The proposal will introduce a grind for SP. I have nothing against a small amount of grinding, but the problem with this is that it introduces the prospect of completely UNLIMITED grinding, you can just continually buy more skill packets. This will not be fun in terms of gameplay as you will miss out on a lot of the more niche aspects of eve, things which you pull off with the tools you have available. So instead of being creative and exploring the possibilities in eve and overcoming odds with knowledge and skill, the main option will be to grind more SP to keep up. There will be no excuse now for not being able to fly the doctrine or perfectly fit ships, if you can't then you will be told to go and grind SP and come back later. This in turn makes the game less fun.

1) Alliances with lots of disposable ISK will be able to instantly train up... newbies. It will be pushing newbies to be more social what is good for retaintion rate.
2) Let them. They are already feel offended.
3) Grindig was and grinding will be.
ColdBeauty
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4937 - 2015-10-25 18:36:34 UTC  |  Edited by: ColdBeauty
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:

. FOTM is a balance issue, sames as T3s. SP makes no difference. Certain ships being significantly more effective than others is a problem because it limits variety and interesting gameplay. The solution is balancing the ships, not having SP or ISK barriers (slightly) limiting player choice of ships


See this is more strawman twaddle, I'm not arguing that SP barrier should be solution to FOTM, I am just pointing out the completely reasonable point that instant access would exacerbate FOTM proliferation... and it would.

Try to debate me on the point I actually make and not the one you think you can rebutt.

Edit : The point you make about SPs being like other tradeable commodity and it not making a difference to renters/nullsec landlords is a fair one and I will concede that.
ColdBeauty
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4938 - 2015-10-25 18:41:17 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:

The proposal creates the concept of SP farms, and allows veteran players with lots of spare SP or ISK to setup these farms to milk as much ISK as they can out of it. Also this is PASSIVE income which is something that CCP has been trying to remove from the game, and worst off it is passive income with absolutely no effort required to set it up or defend.


This is so true is bears repeating.
Don ZOLA
Omniscient Order
#4939 - 2015-10-25 18:46:01 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
no, as you're the one calling me a liar the burden of truth is on you. not me. as for my proof, it's in those links. anyone can read the truth there - the facts i presented.

i said there would be a reduced need for alts and this would lead to a decline in subscribed accounts - that statement ignores the fact that people will simply have SP farming accounts instead. however i didn't comment on that as there's no way to quantify whether or not it'll be a net loss or gain.

my business model comment was in the same post. where i merely pointed out the whole industry has shifted to microtransactions. i didn't make any assumptions about what ccp would do. i asked a question, that question being is it time we accepted that CCP moved from subscriptions to micro transactions. if either of us are liars, it would appear to be you.


You have agreed to my argument. That is what is written there. Or you are trying to deny you wrote it?

Business model comment part (will it switch from subscription to microtransactions) is not even that important as ti might or might not be implemented at some point.


And for links I will say what you have lied with pleasure.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103003#post6103003

Fundamentals are being changed. For previous 12 years there was NO way to increase SP to YOUR char by injecting it, or fastening speed of gaining it beside optimizing attributes and using implants, which are both part of the game.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103187#post6103187

People quitting over some issue definitely cause problems. Beside that it was pointed out how this will affect spying, awoxing, corp thieves etc.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103207#post6103207

Please name those many fundamentals being changed over the years


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103367#post6103367


On character bazaar you purchase characters. As the name implies. You do not buy sp which you can inject to your main char, you buy completely different chars.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103389#post6103389

Same as previous and first post


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103449#post6103449

But it does. With current mechanics you can get lets say 2700 sp per hour with optimized attributes and implants. With the new system you can do that + as much you decide to pay. Ie with old system for 100 hours you could get 270k sp, with new one you can get 5mil or whatever you can afford.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103467#post6103467

As it is stated in the devblog, it favors younger players. Works for everyone but favors young ones.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103502#post6103502

As already explained, you cannot have 300-400 mil sp character now as you are not able to inject sp to existing ones. After the changes that will be affordable for some and that is altering game mechanic since other way it would not be doable before 2020 or so.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103536#post6103536

[b] You cannot go around and buy prestige of top sp players. Simply because their characters are not for sale. And therefore you cannot claim that prestige. I am sure Dr Caymus would not sell his char for all isk in eve. How would you acquire it then?


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6103624#post6103624

[b] I have already drawn you: Not really. I do not think he is among 1k of characters that were made of start. Consider there were no skill queue back then, there was no evemon, there was no remap. So it took him years of careful planning of schedule, best attributes usage, changing them on time and in the end paying the subscription to be where he is. His dedication is the reason he is top 1. And if CCP sends message that dedication aint mean anything and you can be #1 in something if you pay up, I think its the wrong message.



Looking forward your twisting these out, digressing, trying to manipulate them, avoiding them or whatever Blink

There are 2 rules in a successful life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#4940 - 2015-10-25 18:46:45 UTC
Dror wrote:

Social interaction is limited by SP, through effectiveness (status) and productivity (entertainment). That all is the same for gameplay as well, from limitations on exploration (diversity and depth) ..and mastery (fleet comps, being competitive, and practicing ships and fittings and other niches).

You're not defining ideas accurately within the scope of the discussion. A character very well can control the environment, because the definition of that is effectiveness and strategy. Nowhere does the study (nor another, deeper explanation of) control define that as "placing opponents in space". It's about making the most of the character and the full amount of options in the game. It's maximizing opportunity to avoid loss.

You're trying to define a character as this fake identity through trickle-allocated stats, and there's no reason for that. It's basically just an appeal to board-game tradition -- but even those start the character out with full stats (and abilities) from the start. If the gamer is trying to find rapport with the fantasy of playing an MMO character, he can find much less enjoyment with being gated.


Social interaction is only limited by a players ability or desire to interact socially. No in game mechanic has anything to do with that in any way shape or form.

Players do not control an environment but rather how they interact with it. They take into account their skills, the characters capabilities, the capability of the ship they are in etc etc etc. It is about maximizing opportunity based upon that which you currently have. Remove something that affects those opportunities and you remove a major part of the decision making process. Thus you diminish the value of the decisions made to a great degree. A large amount of the risk in game comes from pushing yourself into activities that are borderline based upon your character and player skills. The adrenaline rush that comes from that is so much a part of EvE.

I define a character as an avatar that embodies the choices a player has made in game, it is unique to a player and that is what makes a player invested in the character and therefore the game. I don't know what RPG's you are basing your comment on but none of the games I ever tried (and it was many) started characters with full stats and abilities. Literally none of them. Otherwise what would be the point of XP? There would be nothing for them to increase.

If a player i trying to to find rapport with the fantasy of playing an MMO character then that character has to have a 'life' of it's own, it has to grow and change. Removing skill progression basically destroys this rapport as your character is absolutely no different to every other character in game. Bye bye immersion.